Appeal of E.D., on behalf of her child, from action of the Board of Education of the Red Creek Central School District School District regarding the Dignity for All Students Act.

Decision No. 18,650

(November 4, 2025)

Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, attorneys for respondent, Anne M. McGinnis, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the action of the Board of Education of the Red Creek Central School District (“respondent”) regarding a Dignity for All Students Act (“Dignity Act”) complaint involving her child (the “student”).  The appeal must be dismissed.

At all times relevant to this appeal, petitioner’s son was a senior in respondent’s high school.  On December 2, 2024, a classmate filed a Dignity Act complaint alleging that the student made a threatening statement toward her on or around November 25, 2024.  Respondent’s Dignity Act Coordinator (“Coordinator”) and an assistant principal investigated, concluding that the student’s statement[1] violated the district’s code of conduct but did not constitute bullying or harassment. 

On or about December 12, 2024, respondent received a second Dignity Act complaint.  This complaint alleged that the student retaliated against the classmate for filing the first Dignity Act complaint.[2]  Respondent conducted a second investigation, interviewing the student, the classmate, and several witnesses.

By letter dated January 16, 2025, respondent’s Dignity Act Coordinator determined that the student had violated the Dignity Act.  In connection therewith, she directed the student to stay away from the classmate.  This appeal ensued.  Petitioner’s request for interim relief was denied on February 20, 2025.

Petitioner alleges that the Coordinator improperly considered the outcome of the first investigation, which found that the statements made by the student did not violate the Dignity Act, in concluding that he engaged in bullying and harassment.  Petitioner further alleges that respondent failed to notify her and the student when the second DASA incident report was received.  For relief, petitioner requests that I order respondent to cease “harassing” and “targeting” the student.  Petitioner additionally requests that respondent provide restorative practices between all parties involved.

Respondent maintains that both Dignity Act investigations were conducted in compliance with relevant law and district policy.  Respondent further contends that petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear legal right to her requested relief.

The appeal must be dismissed as moot.  The Commissioner will only decide matters in actual controversy and will not render a decision on a state of facts that no longer exists due to the passage of time or a change in circumstances (Appeal of Sutton, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,331; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 48 id. 532, Decision No. 15,940; Appeal of M.M., 48 id. 527, Decision No. 15,937; see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]).  Where the Commissioner can no longer award a petitioner meaningful relief on his or her claims, no live controversy remains and the appeal must be dismissed (Appeal of R.B., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,394; Appeal of N.C., 40 id. 445, Decision No. 14,522).  Following commencement of this appeal, the student graduated from respondent’s district.  As such, the events described herein are incapable of recurring within the school environment (Appeal of K.A., 59 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,752; Appeal of J.A., 53 id., Decision No. 16,542).

Even if the appeal were not moot, it would be dismissed on the merits.  The Dignity Act prohibits harassment and bullying in public schools.  It defines “harassment” and “bullying,” in relevant part, as: “the creation of a hostile environment by conduct or by threats, intimidation or abuse, including cyberbullying ....” (Education Law § 11 [7]; 8 NYCRR 100.2 [kk] [1] [ix]).  Such a hostile environment may be created where bullying or harassment:

(a) has or would have the effect of unreasonably and substantially interfering with a student's educational performance, opportunities or benefits, or mental, emotional or physical well-being; or

(b) reasonably causes or would reasonably be expected to cause a student to fear for his or her physical safety; or

(c) reasonably causes or would reasonably be expected to cause physical injury or emotional harm to a student ....[3]

A district’s Dignity Act determination will only be reversed upon a showing that it was arbitrary or capricious (Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 59 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,859; Appeal of L.D., 55 id., Decision No. 16,864).

In an appeal to the Commissioner, a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief (8 NYCRR 275.10; Appeal of P.C. and K.C., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,337; Appeal of Aversa, 48 id. 523, Decision No. 15,936; Appeal of Hansen, 48 id. 354, Decision No. 15,884).

Petitioner has not established that respondent’s determination was arbitrary or capricious.  Respondent submits an affidavit from its Dignity Act Coordinator, who interviewed the student, classmate, and other witnesses.  Six witnesses corroborated aspects of the classmate’s allegations against the student.  Given this, the Coordinator found that the student’s blanket denial of impropriety lacked credibility.  Petitioner’s evidence on appeal, which consists of uncorroborated hearsay, is unpersuasive.[4]  Therefore, there is no basis in the record to conclude that respondent’s investigations were improper or that its determination was arbitrary or capricious (see Appeal of John and Jane Doe, 61 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,088; Appeal of I.I., 61 id., Decision No. 18,082; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 59 id., Decision No. 17,859).

In light of this disposition, I need not address the parties’ remaining contentions.  However, nothing herein should be construed as minimizing the safety, social, and emotional issues raised by intimidation, harassment, and bullying in public schools.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE